Petitioner Maulana Farras Ilmanhuda conveying the subjects of his petition in the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Supreme Court Law on Monday (22/6) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court— Law students of the Indonesian Christian University (UKI) and Brawijaya University Deddy Rizaldy Arwin Gutomo (Petitioner I) and Maulana Farras Ilmanhuda (Petitioner II), as well as Healthy Indonesia Card participant Eliadi Hulu (Petitioner III) filed a petition for the judicial review of Law No. 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court. The hearing took place on Monday (22/6/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, chaired by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra along with Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

In the petition No. 40/PUU-XVIII/2020 the Petitioners argue that Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In full, Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court reads, "A legislation that is declared invalid as referred to in paragraph (3) shall not have binding legal force."

Maulana Farras stated that Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law caused the Petitioners to experience actual constitutional damage because they did not receive benefits and legal certainty over the re-enactment of an article that regulates the same thing even though it was revoked by the Supreme Court. If the Petitioners file for a judicial review petition to the Supreme Court and the petition is granted, there is a possibility that the content of the revoked article or paragraph be re-enacted shortly.

Farras revealed on May 5, 2020 the president stipulated the Presidential Regulation No. 64 of 2020 on the Amendment to the Presidential Regulation No. 82 of 2018 on Health Insurance (Perpres No. 64 of 2020), which annulled the Supreme Court Decision Number 24/P/PTS/III/2020/2020/7P/HUM/2020, which revoked Perpres No. 75 of 2019 on Health Insurance. He said that the Perpres came into force only two months after the Supreme Court Decision was pronounced.

"The re-enactment of norms that have been revoked by the Supreme Court in a short time implies a decline in the spirit of the Supreme Court," he stressed. In addition, it creates a public opinion that the Supreme Court’s decisions do not have final legal force.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law unconstitutional and not legally binding so long as it is not interpreted as “A legislation that is declared invalid as referred to in paragraph (3) shall not have binding legal force and any paragraph, article, and/or part of the legislation may not be re-enacted.”

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat advised the Petitioners to revise the Constitutional Court’s authorities and their legal standing. He also asked the Petitioners to explain their argument so that the petition could convince the constitutional justices to consider it to the next hearing. Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioners to improve on elaboration of the law in question. (Utami/Tiara/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 6/23/2020